ILNews

Opinions Oct. 30, 2013

October 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Heather N. Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc.
49S02-1302-CT-89
Civil tort. Holds Kesling’s fraud claim survives summary judgment but her deception claims do not. Advertising a car as “sporty car at a great value price” is not a warranty about the car’s performance or safety characteristics. But stating that a car “would just need a tune-up,” in the face of actual or constructive knowledge that it had far more serious problems, does represent a fact and therefore may be the basis of a fraud claim when a seller gives it as a knowingly incomplete answer to a buyer’s specific question.

Wednesday’s opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
Eric Danner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1304-PC-146
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Delmar P. Kuchaes v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (NFP)
53A04-1206-MF-304
Mortgage foreclosure. Grants rehearing after originally dismissing appeal and finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kuchaes’ motion to continue; in certain evidentiary rulings; in denying Kuchaes’ motion to amend the pleadings; in denying Kuchaes’ motion to reopen; and in the award of attorneys fees.

Christopher Peelman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1301-CR-27
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A felonies dealing in methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine.

Jose A. Bonilla v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1303-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms Class C felony child molestation conviction.

Kendrick Atkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1303-CR-135
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony attempted robbery.

Marcus Anthony Johnson Revocable Trust and The Marion County Board of Zoning Appeals Division No. 1 v. Westchester Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A04-1302-PL-59
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting summary judgment in favor of Westchester Estate Homeowners Association and other appellees and the denial of summary judgment in favor of the trust and board of zoning appeals regarding a zoning variance. 

Lawrence Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-80
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections and commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction to serve the remainder of Harris’ sentence.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT